Daily Republican., 1887-05-25
A Morning Devoted to Argument


Sopsrior Ours reconvensd at IN
o'cioak this morning, with Obicf Jus
zee ComegSs and Associate Judges
ious'on ana Paypter on the barch.
Immediately after tha opening e. G.,
bia1furd, Esq resumed his argument
Ior the plaintiffs in the caye OF Philiu
II acd Enma A. CLARK vs. Htnry T..
UhnrcAman. He contended that 10
MI Chlrchman stopped up the
cut, which had been msde ia
the bank, Immediately after Clark
lei5 the place, it was conclusive
proof That hs had ADD the cut mali
cionsly, and for the express purposs OF
inJuring them. He claimed that as
these fact, had been brought out by the
evidence, the plaintiff are entitled 10
recover damages, and the only question
.or the jury to determine was the
amount. This he said could be ascer-
eSihed from the value Of the land az
placed upon 1t by tie Witnesses.
ne esld THAI, in his opinion. the cues.
tion OF the mortgage had nothing to DO
WIN thls case, 81 far ~ the question of
Jam ages Is concerned, and can only be
useu as an Indication Ct the value OF
OF the plaintiff.
In summing up the amount OF dam.
ages, Mr.. Bradford furnished the fol.
loving figures: S2.8SO for rebuilding
banK, rendered necessary by the wronp-
tu act OF the defendant; $1,000 princi.
Pal, al per cent. interest, to SUD.
ply S3oO year to keep the bank in re.
pair and " $40 for injury To the crop
OF 1886, caused by the defendant keep
ip3 The cut open on his land, with 81 Sz6
damage to crop Of 1886, making Q total
OF VI Ol6 actual damages sustained by
Mr.. Clark. He Claimed that Il had
oeen shown that the prospects were ex.
cellent for good crop of grass on the
OlaTk farm ~ 1855, and that is WAS tax,
act OF Mr.. Churohmsn that ruined it,
Ho also claimed that the PLAINTIFF
should be awarded exemplary dam ages.
upon closing his argument to tho
Jury ne ado ressed The court on num-
Der OF points OF law bearing on the case.
and did not conclude untii1l.45o'c.ock.
Anthony Higgins, Esq then oon-
menced bis argument to the jury for
the defendant by calling attention 10
The changes which the plaintiffs had
made In their declarations, and said
'hAt iacs alone showed that they had
not, nor have they now, any law ON
which 70 base t1eir claims.
He claimed ,hst tie crops we're killeN
by the flood Of 1884, and not by the act
OF MI. .OhurchuasL, and ca..od asteu.
tlon TO the fact that when the
property WAS sold at sheriff'e sale, Mrs.
Clark bongat it for s5c, and that ut the
preaant time abe has no Interest," .n the
land whatever. He contended that IL
was Mr. Cisrk's own fauis that u.u
crops were iLjorsd, as hs could have
pieveated IL Dy rebuilding the bank
which bad been destroyed by the
freshet Of 1884.
Mr. CnofcGLlnn wanted Clark to Ie.
o1tsd the bank, and as he would not do
Il be was 0ampeled TO take tue course
ne nlu. He knew that when Olark's
0Ank was down and the water was in
Jurins his property he had no redress:
there was no use of suing Clark for
damages, SIS a judgment of $40. 600
against him would have had no moro
value than ona for 20 cents, Es it could
not have been collected. The mortgage
OF $50, ,0G0 etood between the property
aud any claims or judgments which
might be bron sht against it,
Mr. Higgins had Hot finished when
court took a reoess ut o'clock until 8
o'clock.